Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indian American Muslim Council


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.  MBisanz  talk 01:00, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Indian American Muslim Council

 * – ( View AfD View log )

A non-notable organization with only passing mentions across multiple articles that are available on the web. And from my removed PROD, I stated, "Any article that does mention this organization will not fit well due to NPOV concerns." Some or most of the articles that I've seen attack the organization and might not be a reliable source about the IAMC. Notability is not met and hasn't been provided with the recent edits. A few articles are about protests the group has started but that is not enough to meet GNG. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:47, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete: The Bloomberg profile cannot be used to establish notability. The IndiaWest source is not reliable. The Economic Times & FirstPost source only shows passing mentions, and the CAIR source is a press release and cannot establish notability. Reliable sources with SIGCOV are needed. Multi7001 (talk) 01:02, 11 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep When large news websites such as Bloomberg News carries a factual and neutral 'profile' of the organization. In addition, there are articles for references available from the following:


 * Bloomberg News
 * NDTV India
 * Firstpost Indian American Muslim Council
 * Hindustan Times newspaper
 * The Tribune (Chandigarh) Indian newspaper US NGOs ask Biden to sanction Indian officials

Above listed references are ONLY a few of the references available after a Google Search to prove the Notability of this article. Passes WP:GNG. Ngrewal1 (talk) 01:17, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Does not pass GNG. None of those articles are about the organization. All are passing mentions. Passing mentions don't help establish notability in this case. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:22, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ALL of those articles are about this organization. All one has to do is a simple Google Search and they will see plenty of available articles to prove this organization's notability. Ngrewal1 (talk) 01:30, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I just now added another reference by The Hindu newspaper also. Ngrewal1 (talk) 04:11, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * They are not about them. They just mention them. That does nothing for GNG. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:11, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * When large organizations like NDTV and Firstpost start their actual Article Titles by using the name 'Indian American Muslim Council', how can one deny those articles are not about this organization? Ngrewal1 (talk) 03:47, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I just now added another newspaper reference by The Hindu newspaper to the above article. Ngrewal1 (talk) 04:11, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:36, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:36, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:37, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep It passes WP:NORG due to the in depth coverage it has received. The Sunday Guardian has covered this org in depth in 2 articles  There are similar detailed coverages from other publishers.  . Indian Newspapers have also covered their work.      Venkat TL (talk) 09:31, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Those are passing mentions. That does not help it pass any form of notability. Two of those sources would not count as having a neutral point of view given the fact that come off as attack pieces and thus violate NPOV. I suggest both keep voters to read the GNG guidlines thoroughly because it's clear from the links you have provided don't help your arguments. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:06, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment The deletion nominator keeps repeating the same thing and rejecting all the references that are added. Seems to me he's trying to be the judge and jury all by himself? Ngrewal1 (talk) 17:05, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Because it has more weight than your arguments. You haven't proven why the article has to remain. Your references don't help improve the article because none of them are about the organization. Do you not understand what "passing mentions" are? --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:10, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Again says who? Ngrewal1 (talk) 19:19, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Per Notability. The article doesn't follow any policy regarding articles. You have not cited a single source that goes in-depth and covers the organization. There is no significant coverage. Passing mentions is not significant coverage. All you have are articles protests and statements. It doesn't meet any form of notability. Two of the Sunday Guardian don't follow NPOV. Those articles can't be credible sources since they attack the organization by making accusations. No in-depth coverage is in any article linked above. Since there is no significant coverage anywhere, it wouldn't pass the criteria for independent sources. Just because some newspapers have talked about, which again, in passing mentions, doesn't mean anything. So instead of saying it does, read the notability policy and if you won't do that then you're not helping your cause. You're clearly haven't read the notability requirements nor want to and instead, as you have at almost every Afd, care very little about policy. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:50, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Where does it say, that a reliable source need to follow NPOV? (I dont need another para long rambling from you, Just a Quote + link for Para will do) FYI, WP:NPOV is a Wikipedia policy. You have mixed up everything and coming up with ludicrous reasoning. Stop wasting everyone's time. Venkat TL (talk) 20:05, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * So is GNG. And yes, sources can fit under NPOV, because those two attack pieces from the Sunday Guardian fail any form of neutrality if one were going to source them as such. And they are not reliable sources. Your PA's are not helping your causes. You clearly have an agenda to not deal with it. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:46, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * As expected you could not find any link. There is no Wikipedia policy that demands "Reliable sources" to follow WP:NPOV Stop presenting your own misunderstandings as wikipedia policy. And I need whatever you are smoking. Venkat TL (talk) 20:51, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You have already been told at the noticeboard and I provided my side on there. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:30, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * WikiCleanerMan, you misunderstand policy. Venkat TL is correct. RS do not have to be neutral. It is editors who must be neutral in their editing. -- Valjean (talk) 22:34, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Any amount of information that uses those sources will not be a reliable source of information and from a editing standpoint will not be written in a neutral point of view. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:36, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If you don't know how to neutrally use a biased source, you need to study our policies. At the noticeboard, I have linked an instructional essay to help you. If the RS is biased and critical, neutral editing will use it to include the critical POV of the source. Articles must included properly-sourced criticism. An editor who neutralizes a critical source or refuses to use it because it is critical and biased is violating NPOV. -- Valjean (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I will finish this by quoting from Reliable sources, Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective . Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. Clearly WikiCleanerMan you need a lot of policy reading to do, before you could participate in AfDs and confuse other participants with your misunderstandings, misreadings, ignorance about policies and guidelines. Venkat TL (talk) 10:19, 12 January 2022 (UTC)


 * While I agree that it's not technically "required," that reliable sources be neutral, unbiased, or objective, it's always better if they are. Especially if they are being used in a BLP article. Otherwise, you risk creating a purely WP:ATTACK page that doesn't serve an encyclopedic purpose. It's also pretty impossible for someone to write an article in a neutral tone based on references that aren't neutral. Otherwise, your just putting your supposedly objective perspective in the article when it actually doesn't exist in the references your synthesizing.


 * In this specific case, since the AfD is about an organization there are specific things that go along with that when it comes to notability. One being that the references can't be overly bias in favor of the organization. Otherwise, they are just glorified PR, puff piece, ads. That were most likely paid for. So the references being neutral, being unbiased, and having objectivity does matter here. Outside of the AfD process those things probably don't matter as much though, but we have to be careful about what we use for notability and not use things for it that are obviously over glorifying or advertising the subject of the article. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:06, 12 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 19:30, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 19:30, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This ref was in the article. WikiCleanerMan what makes you think this multi para article is trivial coverage? Venkat TL (talk) 19:50, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Venkat TL, how does a statement prove notability? You're being ludicrous by failing to even understand one basic concept on Wikipedia that I've repeated multiple times already. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:46, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Alright, that is statement. This Journal is another significant coverage in addition to the list I shared. More are found in the link shared below by others. Venkat TL (talk) 13:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm just supportingVenkat TL here, he is correct, RS doesn't have to be neutral - the article has to be written in a neutral way, and if sources present one argument or another, they need to be incorporated in neutral fashion, with balance by providing sources from both sides of the argument (if available)...and in proportion to the weight WP:WEIGHT of the arguments generally presented in the sources. Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:45, 13 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete . We need coverage of the organization, not passing mentions or coverage of statements by the organization, and it appears we only have one article that meets that requirement, which is not sufficient for WP:GNG. BilledMammal (talk) 22:22, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per Kautilya3 and Deathlibrarian. BilledMammal (talk) 05:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment. "will not fit well due to NPOV concerns" shows a misunderstanding of policy. RS do not have be neutral or positive toward the subject. -- Valjean (talk) 22:31, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly notable per added RS. The bogus "sources are not neutral" argument reveals a lack of understanding of our RS policy. Non-neutral and critical sources are welcome here. -- Valjean (talk) 22:36, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It is not notable. No sources added prove notability. Have you gone through each one? --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:39, 11 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep Evaluating from the lens of the more lenient WP:NONPROFIT, coverage of their national scale activities by WP:RS combined with sources found above (to which I'll add this and this) and the claim in this book that it's the largest advocacy group of Indian American Muslims, appears notable enough. hemantha (brief) 07:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Appearing notable is not notability. The book is a small mention. The pdf accuses the organization of Hinduphobia which might not be a reliable source given the accusations. Even though it's citing the organization, it comes off as an attack piece than a reliable source. The Hindu American Foundation is the publisher of that PDF article and the organization has been accused of promoting Hindu nationalism in subtle ways. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I should've said "there's enough to write a wiki page on". HAF has pov, but neutrality isn't a requirement for sources; it's used as a ref on en-wiki >10 times, so there's some precedent at least. hemantha (brief) 14:46, 13 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep - There is enough evidence that it is a notable WP:NONPROFIT organisation. I would note that it gets mentioned in scholarly sources as well. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Mentions don't prove notability. And I'll repeat this again, its a passing mention. Passing mentions don't meet the standards of notability. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete NCORP has stringent standards and Sunday Guardian is not a RS. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:29, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * How about this? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It's another passing mention. But it's also very brief. Doing a search for the organization that is the only part that I could find that mentions it. Still not enough. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:46, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep I am in agreement with K3. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:19, 13 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep based on the source provided by . It gives substantive background, and itself contains a citation for that paragraph that it would be useful to follow-up on if possible (though I can't check what it is from the preview). Even aside from that, 's source here is clearly far more than a passing mention as well. The article directly relies on their point of view for its premise. Theknightwho (talk) 16:53, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Just ran a search and I can see its also mentioned in some scholarly sources, like this and this. Seems to be notable enough to pass WP:NONPROFIT.Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:41, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WP:NONPROFIT.  Mini  apolis  23:38, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per above discussions. WikiLinuz  🍁 ( talk ) 02:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep this is kind of a snowball and it looks like notability has been well established. BuySomeApples (talk) 07:32, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: the arguments in favor of keep are sound; we are nearing consensus. — Ret.Prof (talk) 18:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I think consensus is overwhelming at this point. Theknightwho (talk) 19:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.